R v Jackson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1998 |
| Date | 20 May 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Criminal procedure - appeal limited to leave terms
For the avoidance of doubt, it should be emphasised that where, in granting leave to appeal on some grounds, the single judge specifically refused leave to appeal on other grounds, the leave of the Court of Appeal was required before counsel could argue those other grounds.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Butterfield and Mr Justice Richards) so stated on April 28, when dismissing an appeal by Stephen Shaun Jackson against his conviction by a majority of 11 to 1 following a re-trial on July 25, 1997 in Croydon Crown Court (Judge Crush and a jury) of theft.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE said that it was argued that the trial judge had erred in law when he refused the defence application to have the count of theft stayed as an abuse of process.
In their Lordships' view the application was correctly refused and, in the light of the overwhelming evidence before the second jury, it could not be regarded as rendering the verdict unsafe.
It was fair to say that counsel for the appellant had sought their Lordships' leave to pursue the other grounds of appeal in respect of which the single judge had refused leave.
Having read the part of the summing up of which complaint was made their Lordships refused leave to appeal that aspect.
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Judge, Mr Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Brian Smedley
Criminal procedure - failure to sign indictments - validity
Where a judge concluded that there was insufficient nexus to justify the joinder of counts in a three-count indictment and ordered re-arraignment on two fresh indictments, the fact that the proper officer of the court failed to comply with the judge's unequivocal direction that she should sign the fresh indictments did not render those indictments invalid.
The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing one of the grounds of appeal put forward by five appellants who on April 1, 1996 were sentenced by Judge Farrer, QC at Birmingham Crown Court to substantial terms of imprisonment following convictions for conspiracy to rob shops and post offices and possession of a prohibited weapon.
Mr J C Price, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellants; Mr S D Brand for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE JUDGE, giving the reserved judgment of the court on the ground of appeal that the failure by the proper officer to sign the indictment rendered the trials a nullity, said that the appellants relied on R v MoraisUNK ([1988] 87 Cr App R 9) to support the submission that the signature of the proper officer of the court was a mandatory requirement.
One important distinction from Morais was that in the present case, before arraignment on the fresh indictments, the judge had exercised the discretion granted to him as the trial judge by the proviso to section 2(1) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and of his own motion had directed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v O'Brien (Practice Note)
...quite entitled to take into account previous serious convictions. We are concerned about the starting point of 9 years. We were referred to Jackson [1995] 1 Cr App R (S) 259. The appellant, much younger than Moss, pleaded guilty to robbery. At a time when he was on licence from prison follo......
-
R v Joseph Smith
...to the task before us is Lord Bingham's consideration of a 1997 decision of the Court of Appeal in Jackson (Andrew) and others [1997] 2 Cr.App.R 497(Judge LJ (as he then was), Longmore and Brian Smedley JJ). In that case, a 17-count indictment against a number of defendants was duly signed ......
-
R v Clarke (Ronald Augustus) and McDaid
...the defect, the court ordered a venire de novo so that the case would be tried again. 10 The authority of R v Morais was not questioned in R v Jackson [1997] 2 Cr App R 497 although, on the special facts of that case, the Court of Appeal (Judge LJ, Longmore and Smedley JJ) reached a differ......
-
R v Ashton; R v Draz; R v O'Reilly
...indictment" (p. 14) and that in the absence of a proper indictment the trial was a nullity. 76 The decision in Morais was distinguished in R v Jackson [1997] 2 Cr App R 497. The judge directed the proper officer to sign two indictments but she failed to do so. This court held that the prope......
-
Leave to Appeal on Specified Grounds Only
...pAshworth [1996] 1 Admin LR 394 expoundedanother, althoughnoneof those opinions was of binding authority. In RvJackson[1999] 1 All ER 572, Rose U stated that where the single judge554 Leaveto AppealonSpecifiedGroundsOnlyhas refused leave on any point, counsel must obtain the leave of the fu......
-
Leave to Appeal on Specified Grounds Only
...pAshworth [1996] 1 Admin LR 394 expoundedanother, althoughnoneof those opinions was of binding authority. In RvJackson[1999] 1 All ER 572, Rose U stated that where the single judge554 Leaveto AppealonSpecifiedGroundsOnlyhas refused leave on any point, counsel must obtain the leave of the fu......